English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you give any credance to the Bible as to being at least partially acurate?

Or do you believe the whole thing to be false?

If some of the Bible would be found to coincide with other historical documents do you think that would be enough to prove to you the existence of Heaven and Hell?

Or would you want more proof?

Do you believe in any other historical re-tellings that aren't 100% accurate and maybe a little embellished to be true?

2007-07-05 09:30:47 · 15 answers · asked by vince_the_bat 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

I'm sure that there are claims in the Bible that are true.

Why in the world would historical accuracy lead me to believe in the existence of heaven and hell? That's ridiculous - they've got nothing to do with each other.

I mean, the Harry Potter books have true claims about day-to-day life in Great Britain, but no matter how much of that kind of thing there is, it's not going to lead me to believe in wizard schools.

2007-07-05 09:33:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8 1

I have taken a lot of courses regarding the bible and I have found that there are parts of the bible that are historically accurate. That being said, there is no proof of a historical Jesus. Some wars line up, but it is not surprising that something written during that time would include things that happened. It is like books being written today. Even the ones that are ridiculous and farfetched will still have at least one valid fact. These events that coincide do not still prove there is a God or heaven and hell. Each person must make that decision for themselves.
(Also keep in mind that there are other religious texts that have historical relevance. Does that make them the true religion? You have to be careful what measure you use to prove something is true. Other things might also proven)

2007-07-05 09:41:05 · answer #2 · answered by alana 5 · 2 0

The problem I have is that the fundies all say that it is the word of god and the truth, but it really was a political document voted on in 325 AD. With that as a premise then it can be used as an historical document since it was written a long time ago. Some things have been proven as historically close or accurate, but many different things are a farse. Also, much of it has been borrowed from several different cultures.

2007-07-05 09:59:37 · answer #3 · answered by bocasbeachbum 6 · 2 0

There are some historical facts in the bible,but no more then any historical novel. I think Jesus was a man whose actions were embellished over time ,as the earliest documents we have were written 500 years after his death, and they are very different from Bible we know today. There are multiple "lost books" ie; books of Judas and Mary Magdalen that have not been included and give different accounts of Jesus"s life. In short there was a really tall lumberjack in Canada who did some amazing things,but there is no Paul Bunyan

2007-07-05 09:57:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

for the most part, the bible is not nor should it ever be used as a history or science text book. it doesnt work. yes there are things in the bible (few as they are) that did happen historically speaking. for instance there was a great flood in the time of noah but it wasnt a world flood, nor did he have every animal on earth on his boat. there was a great flood and he waited it out. there you go. that was probably what origonally happend.

no if more were to be found that coincided with biblical happenings no that wouldnt be enough to prove a heaven hell existance because it only proved a historical event was recorded in the bible. you should also take out the supernatural things in it too over hundreds of years any document that is retold gets embelished over and over again.

2007-07-05 09:40:42 · answer #5 · answered by god_of_the_accursed 6 · 2 0

I don't doubt that there are little bits and pieces in biblical stories that are based on actual events. There appears to be enough evidence to support the statement that there was a Rabbi named Jesus who lived about 2000 years ago in southwest Asia and northeast Africa.

But historical evidence you could show that these people were real wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that the supernatural mythology that surrounds those people is also true.

I hear this argument frequently...Jesus was a real historical figure so that somehow lends credence to the hocus pocus.

There's as much evidence that Muhammad was a real person as there is that Jesus was a real person. So, if Muhammad was in fact a real person, does that make the whole thing about the flying horse real too?

There was a Romanian Count named Vlad Dracul (aka "Vlad the Impaler"). He was verifiably real. Does his existence mean that the Vampire Dracula mythology is also true?

I could travel 800 years into the future and I might be able to convince the people I meet that Abraham Lincoln was a robot. I could show them the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation. I could tell them about his leadership of the Union when the Confederacy seceded.

I could tell them about the excellent line of automobiles that his company produced (I really like his Navigator SUV). I could show them clips of the commercials he made with a cute talking beaver for a sleep medication.

Then, I could show them pictures of a robotic Mr. Lincoln built by Walt Disney to be the 16th president of the United States. And I bet I could get them to buy it.

With a few centuries blurring the facts, you could make up some pretty fantastic stuff about people that actually existed. It wouldn't make their historical existence false and it wouldn't make any crazy fairy tales attributed to them true.

2007-07-05 15:48:44 · answer #6 · answered by Foxtrot-Yankee 3 · 0 0

Always remember "History is written by the victors"
I don't believe every historical reference I read and really good historian with gather facts from multiple sources that can be traced and proven. I'm sorry but the Bible can't. There are NO first hand reports of Jesus outside of the bible. I think Jesus might have existed, but NOTHING like what he is painted as today.
And before anyone gets upset from why I understand Josephus was born after Jesus died. So that isn't first hand.

2007-07-05 09:33:45 · answer #7 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 3 0

I can't imagine anyone considering a simple correlation between the bible and other historical documents to be any evidence whatsoever of Heaven and Hell. Most fictional documents contain elements that coincide with reality.

2007-07-05 10:06:32 · answer #8 · answered by SvetlanaFunGirl 4 · 1 0

It is certainly at least in part historically accurate. But taken in its historic context all this proves is that it is a social polemic designed to promote a master race against its enemies, justifying them as gods chosen and advocating xenophobia. Heaven and hell are mere instrument of sociopolitical control exercised through priests and religious leaders, who were the ones to weild real power.

2007-07-05 09:45:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

There are mentions here and there of a few ancient rulers and a couple of cities which have been proven to have existed with alternative evidence, including archaeological finds, but the vast majority of it is allegory, wishful thinking or just re hashed myths from earlier civilizations.

2007-07-05 09:48:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers